Background Briefing (July 2002)
Prepared by the Green/EFA Group in the European Parliament
In June 1999, five Member States released a statement urging the Commission to "to present thorough legislative proposals for traceability and labelling in the field of the GMOs". Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg also stated that new authorisations for the placing on the market of GMOs should be "suspended until effective arrangements are adopted for the thorough traceability of GMO's enabling reliable labelling of all GMO-derived products to be guaranteed". Since then the European Union has not granted any marketing permits for GMOs.
On 2 July the European Parliament will discuss two reports dealing with the
Commission proposals on traceability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
GM food and GM feed [COM(2001) 182], and on the authorisation of GM food and
feed [COM(2001) 425]. This background briefing gives an overview of the most
controversial and eseential issues raised by the two Commission proposals.
The two reports will be voted in the European Parliament plenary on Wednesday, the 3rd of July, 2002.
1. the introduction of a uniform and consistent authorisation and labelling
regime for all food and animal feed containing, consisting of or produced
from GMOs;
2. the extension of the current labelling provisions to all genetically
modified food and to feed of GMO origin, including highly refined oils, irrespective
of the detectability of DNA or protein;
3. the requirement to indicate in addition through adequate labelling when genetically
modified food/ feed 'may give rise to ethical or religious concerns'
4. the introduction of a traceability scheme which will facilitate withdrawal
and monitoring of GM products as well as control and verification of labelling
claims;
5. the mandatory 'dual-use' authorisation when a product is likely to
be used both as food and feed;
6. the obligation to take 'other legitimate factors relevant to the matter
under consideration', into account when reaching a decision on marketing approvals;
7. the abandonment of the fast-track notification procedure, currently
foreseen under the Novel Food Regulation, for GM food products whose origin
is not identifiable through testing;
8. the ten-year limitation on product approvals;
9. the introduction of post-marketing monitoring plans for GM food and
feed;
1. the introduction of a 1% threshold for unauthorized GMOs and GM derivatives,
where their presence is 'adventitious' or 'technically unavoidable' and the
proposal to amend Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs accordingly;
2. the introduction of an unspecified labelling threshold for authorized
GMOs and GM derivatives, where their presence is 'adventitious' or 'technically
unavoidable' ;
3. the exclusion of processing aids and animal products derived from
animals which have been fed with GM feed from the scope of both Commission proposals;
4. the attempt to restrict unilateral emergency measures by Member States;
5. the lack of 'co-existence' or 'anti-contamination' measures requiring
notifiers and users of GM products to avoid the unitended presence of their
products in other products;
6. the lack of involvement of Member State authorities responsible for
food safety, health and environment in the Member States during the authorisation
procedure.
The Greens/EFA support the new labelling principle, proposed by the Commission, according to which GM food/ feed have to be labelled irrespective of the detectability of its DNA or protein.
Under the current law, only food products in which DNA or protein from a GMO can be detected have to be labelled. But consumers want to know whether the food they buy is or is not produced from GMOs rather than whether current scientific methods allow for the identification of such products.
Currently, many products, such as vegetable oils or sugar, derived from GMOs do not have be labelled, not even if they have been produced solely from genetically modified raw material.
Some argue that the impossibility to scientifically prove whether refined ingredients have been derived from a GMO, will make the proposed labelling provisions unenforceable and will result in frauds. But the absence of scientific methods has never been considered a valid reason for not subjecting the same products to a pre-marketing authorisation procedure. In fact, under the existing Novel Food Regulation, food produced from GMOs must be authorised whether or not it contains DNA or protein, whether or not its GMO-source is identifiable or not. The Commission's proposal would therefore simply extend the labelling provisions to those GM foods which already require a pre-marketing authorisation.
There are many examples of mandatory labelling being imposed despite the absence of any scientific methods. The most obvious example is origin labelling, which is required on many foods, such as fruits and vegetables.
The Greens/EFA share the view of the European Parliament's Environment Committee that thresholds for unauthorised GMOs and GM materials are not acceptable.
The Commission proposes a 1% threshold for unauthorised GMOs and GM materials when their presence in a conventional food or feed product is 'adventitious' or 'technically unavoidable'.
The Commission's proposal implies that 1/100 tomatoes, 10/1.000 fish, 500/50.000 tons of soya beans, could be genetically modified and could be sold as food or feed without being authorised and without being labelled.
The Commission argues that such a threshold is necessary as a transitional measure given that several GMOs, which have been cleared in the US and other countries, have not yet been approved by the European Union due to the de-facto moratorium. However, as the Commission obviously intends to lift the moratorium as soon as the new rules on labelling and traceability are adopted, transitional thresholds would become superfluous; pending product applications could then simply be rejected or approved.
For the labelling of traces of authorised GM derivatives in conventional products the lowest achievable threshold should be established and reviewed in the light of scientific and technological progress.
The Commission proposes another threshold - to be specified by a regulatory committee - for the labelling of traces of authorised live GMOs and GMO derivatives in conventional products. However, while such a threshold might not compromise food safey, it would definitely ignore the consumers' freedom of choice. A threshold for 'live', unprocessed GMOs would mean that 1/100 tomatoes could enter the food chain without being labelled. The labelling scheme would become a lottery.
There should be NO labelling threshold for live GMOs - they are either genetically modified or they are not. To guarantee consumers' freedom of choice the lowest achievable threshold should be applicable to processed food and feed products.
Processing aids produced from genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) as
well as products derived from animals fed on GMOs should be subjected to an
authorisation procedure and to mandatory labelling.
The Commission proposes to exclude both product categories from traceability and labelling. But if, as stated by the Commission, "the determining criterion is whether or not material derived from the genetically modified strating material is present in the food or in the feed" processing aids should be regulated and labelled as they may result in the unintentional presence of residues of the processing aid or its derivatives in the final product.
In a recent submission to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, the European Community commented that it is "generally not in favour of exemptions of labelling and is of the opinion that the consumer should be informed when foods and food ingredients, including additives, enzymes and flavourings have been produced from GMO."
The current practise of many operators also shows that consumers obviously wish to know whether animal-derived products offered for human consumption stem from animals fed on GMOs.
Setting thresholds without establishing measures necessary to meet those thresholds
does not make much sense.
Similarly, thresholds for the adventitious presence of GMOs do not make much sense either as long as there are no agreed standards for what is or is not "adventitious". Setting thresholds for GMO contamination and requiring those who do not use GMOs to meet those thresholds is simply unfair and contradicts the 'polluter pays principle'.
What is needed is co-existence management. Those who use GMOs, including farmers
cultivating GM crops, should have the legal responsibilty to take all steps
necessay to avoid contamination of conventional or organic products.